Smt. Renu Anand, Chandigarh V. ITO, W-1(3), Chandigarh

CO 12/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5097 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 17-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR G S PHANI KISHORE
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH B, CHANDIGARH .., ! '# #$ %, & '( BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , SANJAY GARG, J M CROSS OBJECTION NO. 12/CHD/2019 (IN ITA NO. 1353 /CHD/2018) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SMT. RENU ANAND SCO 151-152, SECTOR-8 CHANDIGARH THE ITO WARD-1(3), AAYAKAR BHAWAN CHANDIGARH PAN NO: AASPA1140M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : DR. G.S. PHANI KISHORE, CIT DR ! '# DATE OF HEARING : 17/02/2020 $%&'()# DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/02/2020 ')/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS CROSS OBJECTION ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 1353/C HD/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 29/08/201 8 OF LD. CIT(A)-1, CHANDIGARH. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN SOUGHT, T HEREFORE, WE PROCEEDED EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION H AS BEEN DECIDED AFTER HEARING THE LD. CIT DR. 3. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS CROSS OBJECTION: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS), HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 2. THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GR OSSLY ERRED IN CONCLUDING IN PARA 5.3.2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER THA T APPELLANT IS A JOINT HOLDER OF BANK ACCOUNT ALONGWITH HER HUSBAND, THE ENTIRE SUM RECEIVED IN THE ACCOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME AS AGAINST SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BANK ACCOUNT EXCLUSIVELY BELONG TO SH. ONKAR AN AND HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ADDED ON LY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES. 3. THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS GR OSSLY ERRED IN NOT DISPOSING OFF SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PROPE RTY IN QUESTION WAS PURCHASED BY SH. ONKAR ANAND HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS OWN SOURCES AND NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ADDED FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES THOUGH SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DULY INCORPORATED IN PARA 5.3.1 O F THE APPELLATE ORDER. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT REQUESTS FOR LEAVE TO ADD OR ANNEX ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF CROSS-OBJECTION BEFORE THE SAME ARE HEARD OR DIS POSED OFF. 4. FROM THE AFORESAID GROUND NO. 1, IT IS CLEAR THA T THE ASSESSEE MAINLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD DELET ED THE ADDITION WHICH WERE MADE BY THE A.O. THE LD. CIT DR DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SOUGHT ANY RELIEF, THEREFORE, THIS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. CI T DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CA SE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SOUGHT ANY RELIEF AND THE ADDI TION WHICH WERE MADE BY THE A.O., HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, TAMIL NADU-III VS. SUNDARAM CLAYTON LTD. REPORTED AT [198 2] 136 ITR 315 (MAD) HELD AS UNDER: HELD, THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD SUCCEEDED WHOLLY BEFORE THE AAC THERE WAS NO SCOPE FOR FILING AN APPEAL OR CROSS-OBJECTION. A CROSS-OBJECTION, BEING IN THE NATURE OF AN APPEAL, ALLOWING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS WOULD MEAN INTERFERING WITH THE ORDER OF THE AAC AND AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMIS SED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AAC, IT SHOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS IN LIMINE AS NOT BEING ENTERTAINABLE. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TECHNICALLY ALLOWING THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS. 3 6.1 IN THE PRESENT ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SOUGHT ANY RELIEF AND MERELY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A). THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COUR T IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS N OT MAINTAINABLE AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/02/2020 ) SD/- SD/- #$ % .., (SANJAY GARG ) ( N.K. SAI NI) & '(/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 17/02/2020 *% +,-. -( COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. ** ! / CIT 4. ** ! /01 THE CIT(A) 5. - 245*#*4)56789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:' GUARD FILE *% + ! BY ORDER, ; ASSISTANT REGISTRAR